Main menu

You are here

Probation guy guilty

The Globe has the basics on the convictions of John O'Brien and two underlings. At Mass. Lawyers Weekly, Harvey Silverglate and Daniel Schneider question whether US Attorney Carmen Ortiz went too far:

[T]he notion that an unelected federal prosecutor can do the job of reforming state politics by twisting vague federal statutes to mean what they say they mean surely would be puzzling and dangerous in the eyes of the Constitutionâ€™s drafters.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Comments

â€¦ another set of rascals just takes their place. No political party has a monopoly on corruption. Demand elected officials pass laws preventing shenanigans? Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ms. Ortiz, but it's nice to see the sense of entitlement that permeates Beacon Hill; that notion that public service jobs may be doled out to well-connected, politically-patronizing individuals, rather than the most qualified; taken down a notch or two.

It would help if politicians didn't run unopposed. Right now without challengers they have little to no incentive to even pretend to not be corrupt and care about their constituents. If they had to campaign at least for that period every so often they'd have to pay attention to the people and keep their nose clean,

5 people run form party A, getting 15 percent a piece (total of 65%). Two run from part B, getting 18 and 17 percent (35 percent). Party B gets both slots for the final ballot -- despit getting half the primary votes.

from Party A, and the top person from Party B, etc. for the final election. As far as the primary itself, there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to force the voter to affliate themselves with Party A, Party B, or other, to exercise their Constitutional right to cast a ballot. All requiring party affiliation does is to unreasonably limit a voter's choices, and make additional unnecesary work for the polling people.

If a private, nongovernmental organization like the Sierra Club, or the AFL-CIO, or the Malden Chamber of Commerce decides to endorse a political candidate, they make the decision, internally, using their own procedures, and on their own nickel.

Why do we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for a private, nongovernmental organization like the Democratic Party or the Republican party to canvass its members and decide which candidate it is going to endorse in the general election?

On the ballot, next to a candidate's name, we don't list whether or not the candidate has the endorsement of private, nongovernmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, etc. Why, then, do we make a special exception for private nongovernmental organizations like the political parties, and show on the ballot next to the candidates' names the parties' endorsements?

When the 2 party system gets broken, it is easier for corruption to spread. Look at it this way- the Democratic Party controlled the U.S. House from the 1950s until the 1990s. What brought them down? They were tarred as being corrupt (check cashing scandal as a prime example) and out of touch with the voters. Of course, nowadays districts are rigged so that very few are actually competitive.

The majority of the members of the General Court have essentially been "reelected", before the ballots have been printed. Most of the rest will win in September and November. Yes, the Mass GOP is weak, but it is our fault of the system stagnates. In states where politics is actually competitive, politicians have to be on their toes.

Oh, and speaking as a Democrat, Democrats are by and large more corrupt. And it is my little slice of the pie (urban Irish) that drives it. This is not to say that there are not corrupt Republicans. It's just happens that Dems get the corrupt ones.

"party of the wealthy"? Please, you mean to tell me all those billionaires and millionaires attending various fundraisers for this administration is just an optical illusion? Some of this administration cabinet appointees are certainly pay back for bundling and other fundraising activities, that's the gist of the problem and not one party is holier than the other.

Until we admit both parties listen to the money before listening to us, we're going no where.

Scott Brown did a serious disservice to the statewide credibility of the party when he forgot that he was a Senator and became a pawn.

I happily supported Weld - even canvassed for his first campaign. But look how the GOP nationally drummed him out because he *gasp* represented Massachusetts and not the national GOP.

The problem with the local GOP is that when they get any more major attention, they get threatened by the national buffoons to toe the line or get primaried or lose all support for their reelection. People won't elect them - even when you have a decent rep like Tisei running against a rep who is either a crook or an idiot - because we all know what will happen when they get to DC.

There aren't enough elected Republicans to be corrupt. Now, down South, a lot of the corrupt Democrats have become Republicans, but up here we have perhaps Joe Malone who, like Edwin Edwards, was never convicted of anything.

Everything else you say is partisan. Don't get me wrong, they're the reasons I'm still a Democrat, but I do wish we had a strong second party keeping things honest. Other states do, in spite of ideological bent. Sometimes I think the local GOP shoots itself in the foot, then I remember that Tisei couldn't beat Tierney, and I scratch my head.

Name one GOP politician convicted, tried, or even indicted between 1990 and 2006 in Massachusetts.

Remember, I was the one who cited the whole Treasury Dept. kerfuffle, but the elected official didn't even go in front of a Grand Jury on that one. Blute went down for inappropriate behavior (thanks to the Herald for reminding me of that) but nothing even close to criminal.

It's not that Democrats are by nature corrupt. It's just that Republicans in Massachusetts have had little chance to be corrupt.

My parents always voted D, as most of their generation did. I remember my first time voting in a Presidential election - 1980 (?), my older brother brought me to vote and when we got home, mom asked how it went. Excitingly I told her I voted for Reagan.
She nearly hit the floor. "We don't vote that way in this house!".

Fast forward 30 years. Never missing a chance to vote, her last two chances to vote (now in her 90's) were very upsetting to her as she found the democratic party was not the party for her any longer. She followed politics and was "with it" up until the end.

It bothered her that she could not bring herself to vote for a democrat, but she admitted to me she just couldn't do it.

I'll bet she went with a write in or Independent candidate, I only know it wasn't the dem.

The boldness of arguing that undeniably corrupt processes were just acceptable "business as usual" for Massachusetts was impressive (I guess), but I am glad it didn't work. Now someone needs to start investigating the gambling casino funny business. (Looking at you you once again, Speaker De Leo).

It is not a crime to hire someone who has been referred to you for a job. These people were found guilty of fraudulently cooking the evaluations of the people they hired to make it appear as if the people met the state's hiring criteria. I agree with that outcome, as this appears to have gone well beyond the mere hiring of people who had been referred to the agency by politicians.

... independent raters being threatened or pressured. NOT acceptle patrongage practices. This may be (or -- hopefully -- may have BEEN) business as usual for Massachusetts bigwigs (connected wioth both parties) for a long time -- but it is corrupt and illegal, The fact that other folks -- perhaps equally have not been nailed (yet) -- is neither here nor there. Not an Ortiz fan in general -- but she and her crew did just fine this time. Now -- maybe one or more of those just convicted will decide to start singing -- and we could see a bunch more prosecutions, this time of politicians.

... created a system that expressly allowed patronage hiring, without regard to merit or qualification, then presumably hiring based solely on clout and connections would indeed be legal. But, perhaps, the legislature might face a bit of public opposition if it passed such a system.

By state law? This seems to conflict with the probation judge's insistence that "patronage itself is not illegal".
All of which is to say that although merit-based hiring should be mandatory, I am pretty sure it is not. Perhaps a legislative fix is in order, though we probably need new legislators first.

.. with no funny business going on -- and one has a patron and the other doesn't, it is probably legal to give a preference to the one with a patron.

The evidence in this case shows that O'Brien and team phonied up the evaluations/assessments to make a number of patron-sponsored candidates who were _not_ fully qualified (or were totally non-competitive with much more qulified candidates) in order to create a paper record that made it look like the candidates with patrons were worthy of consideration and selection.

This is where the fraud came in, not simply in the giving of preference of one legitimate candidate over nother.

Her friends senators Kerry and Kennedy made some calls for her. I won't hold my breath for the indictment. I agree with Dan F above, this is selective prosecution and does little to address the larger issue. I also share Harvey Silverglate's concerns expressed in his article about bringing all the resources of the federal government to bear against these functionaries by stretching federal statutes (which were developed to prosecute the mafia and drug kingpins) to their breaking point. I understand the concern, but the remedy in this case is far too severe, IMO

The AG has been horrible at her job. Every major corruption case she tries (which is few) she fails. The fact she couldn't put the weightlifting disabled fireman behind bars was the last straw for me. It's not like it would be hard to find instances of corruption.

Having worked for the Commonwealth, and learned about the quid pro quo of keeping one's job, I find this trial to be the persecution of a State employee for doing what his superiors directed him to do. The idea that Commissioner O'Brien had any choice in the matter is to stretch incredulity.

It is the Mass. Legislature that holds the purse strings; And, those strings are like tentacles reaching out and imprisoning those employees who happen to be in a position that a legislator can leverage for his (or her) benefit. Had Commissioner O'Brien had the temerity to refuse or even question a hire referral by a legislator, his budget would have been decimated by the next scheduled quarterly distribution through the Comptroller's Office; within a month his position would have been eliminated and a new Probation dept. entity enacted. Perhaps that is what the prosecutor finds fault with: That Commissioner O'Brien was not eager to quit his job and leave, having learned about quid pro quo.

is essentially set up (Democrat vs Republican, with occasional independents) so any government, regardless of which party is in power, isn't too far left or far right; they are basically forced to be centralist, regardless of promises they make during elections. This basically mean changing the status quo is very difficult and slow, sometimes next to impossible.